Latest Judgments of the Federal Supreme Court
Here you will find the most recent judgments of the Federal Supreme Court (FSC) from bger.ch. For the first three judgments, we present you with detailed summaries including facts, considerations, and rulings. For the further judgments, you will find a summary of the facts. The complete summaries of all judgments are available on the Lexplorer portal. There you can configure your newsletter and receive the latest judgments individually tailored to your legal fields.
7B_134/2025: Admission of the complaint regarding unsealing of data carriers
Summary of the facts
The Federal Supreme Court deals with the complaint of the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Schaffhausen against an order of the Cantonal Court of Schaffhausen, coercive measures court. A.________ AG, B.________ Ltd, C.________, D.________ and E.________ had filed a sealing request to prevent the search of seized data carriers that were secured at lawyers’ offices. These were seized in the context of a criminal proceeding concerning an assisted suicide. The lower court had rejected the request for unsealing. The Federal Supreme Court overturns this decision and remands the case for segregation and renewed examination of the request.
Summary of the considerations
The Federal Supreme Court is competent because there is a final cantonal decision which constitutes an interlocutory decision. There is an irreparable disadvantage. The complaint was filed in due form and time and is therefore admissible. For the ordering of coercive measures such as searches and seizures, among other things, a sufficient suspicion and proportionality are required. When interfering with fundamental rights of persons not accused, particular restraint is required. The classification of respondents 4 (D.________) and 5 (E.________) as "accused persons" is affirmed. There is sufficient suspicion of aiding suicide or other offenses. The seizure and the requested unsealing of technical devices (laptops, mobile phones) of the accused are proportionate and appropriate, as presumably relevant evidence is present on the devices. The special protection interests of attorney-client privilege do not apply because the persons concerned are themselves accused in connection with the proceedings. A judicial segregation of irrelevant data must be carried out. Unsealing is to be performed, but on the condition that relevant data are first separated from irrelevant data.
Summary of the ruling
The complaint is upheld and the contested decisions of the lower court are overturned. The matter is remanded to the lower court for renewed examination of the unsealing request, and the court costs are imposed on the respondents.
2C_191/2026: Non-admission of the complaint regarding timely payment of the advance on costs
Summary of the facts
The Filipino national A.________ lived in Switzerland without a permit since 2013 and worked in the domestic sector. Her applications for residence permits on grounds of hardship and the subsequent complaint at the Federal Administrative Court (FAC) were dismissed due to non-payment of the advance on costs. After a successful revision request at the FAC, A.________ simultaneously filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court but withdrew it after an agreement on the revision.
Summary of the considerations
- E.1: The complainant requested an examination of her timely payment of the advance on costs, which led to the revision of the previous FAC decision. - E.4.1: According to Art. 89 para. 1 lit. c BGG, a current legitimate interest in the complaint is required. Since the FAC had meanwhile annulled the original decision, this interest no longer existed at the time the complaint was lodged. - E.5: Due to the disappearance of the object of the proceedings, the Federal Supreme Court declared the complaint manifestly inadmissible (Art. 108 para. 1 lit. a BGG). No court costs were imposed (Art. 66 para. 1 BGG), but the complainant was compensated for the costs of her legal representation.
Summary of the ruling
The ruling declares the complaint inadmissible, dismisses the imposition of court costs, and orders party compensation of CHF 1,000 to be paid by the Swiss Confederation. A notification is also sent to the parties involved and the FAC.
9C_343/2026: Non-admission of the complaint regarding disability pension
Summary of the facts
The complainant filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court against a decision of the Chambre des assurances sociales of the Cour de justice de la République et canton de Genève, which confirmed the rejection of a new request for a full disability pension.
Summary of the considerations
- E.1: The complaint is directed against the decision of the lower court dated 24 April 2026.
- E.2: The requirements of Art. 42 BGG apply to complaints to the Federal Supreme Court, in particular the complainant must specifically justify the violation of law.
- E.3: The lower court confirmed the decision of the disability insurance based on a comprehensive medical assessment by Swiss Expertises Médicales (SEM). This assessment found a working capacity of 80 to 90% with a reduced earning capacity of 10 to 20%. The lower court considered the objections of the treating doctors insufficient to question the expert opinion.
- E.4: The complainant argued only summarily, referring to the opinion of her treating physician and the disabling nature of fibromyalgia. However, she failed to specifically contest the reasoning of the lower court or to demonstrate a violation of law.
- E.5: The Federal Supreme Court notes that the complaint obviously lacks the statutory requirements for justification (Art. 42 para. 1 and 2 BGG). The case is therefore declared inadmissible (Art. 108 para. 1 lit. b BGG).
Summary of the ruling
The Federal Supreme Court declared the complaint inadmissible, no court costs were imposed, and the judgment is served on the parties and the competent authorities.
7B_1291/2025: Non-admission of the complaint regarding unsealing of mobile phones
Summary of the facts
The Public Prosecutor's Office Zurich-Sihl is conducting a criminal investigation against A.________ for possible violations of the Narcotics Act. In this context, two mobile phones were secured, whose sealing A.________ requested. The coercive measures court of the District Court Dietikon ordered, at the request of the Public Prosecutor's Office, the complete unsealing and release of these mobile phones. A.________ filed a criminal complaint against this, citing in particular reasons of confidentiality.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
2C_325/2026: Non-admission of the complaint regarding revocation of professional practice permit
Summary of the facts
The complainant A.________, a specialist in psychiatry and psychotherapy, was preventively revoked the authorization to practice his profession by the Cantonal Health Service in the Canton of Valais by a precautionary order effective 24 February 2025. The reason was his conduct in connection with the treatment of patient B.________. The complainant filed legal remedies against this order, and the cantonal administrative court on 22 April 2026 lifted the complete revocation of the professional practice permit but maintained the measure regarding the said patient. In addition, the court confirmed the obligation to undergo a psychiatric examination. A.________ then filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
4A_164/2026: Non-admission of the complaint regarding interlocutory decision of the Cantonal Court of Schwyz
Summary of the facts
A lawsuit filed by the respondent against the complainant was dismissed by the Höfe District Court. On appeal by the respondent, the Cantonal Court of Schwyz overturned the district court judgment and remanded the case to the district court for completion of the facts and further assessment. The complainant filed a complaint against this with the Federal Supreme Court.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
1C_538/2025: Dismissal of the complaint regarding building permit for mobile phone installation
Summary of the facts
Swisscom (Switzerland) AG received the building permit for a mobile phone installation in Flawil. A.________ AG and B.________ GmbH appealed against this, alleging among other things violations of environmental law. The Building and Environmental Department of the Canton of St. Gallen as well as the Administrative Court of the Canton of St. Gallen dismissed their complaints. The complainants appealed the judgment to the Federal Supreme Court as the last instance.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
7B_351/2024: Partial admission of the criminal complaint regarding human trafficking and procedural violations
Summary of the facts
- A.________, a man born in India, filed a criminal complaint in 2016 against B.________ (Swiss and Indian national) for human trafficking and later against C.________ for false testimony. - The investigation against both accused was closed by the Geneva public prosecutor's office in 2023 with corresponding dismissal orders. - A.________ filed complaints against the dismissal orders with the Geneva courts, which were deemed inadmissible regarding the complaint against C.________ and dismissed regarding B.________. - A.________ filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court, alleging violations of Art. 4, 6 and 13 of the ECHR among others.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
9C_331/2026: Non-admission of the complaint regarding disability insurance
Summary of the facts
The complainant A.________ filed a complaint on 2 April 2026 against a letter of the Cantonal Court Basel-Landschaft dated 3 March 2026. He requested the annulment of this letter, determination of his lack of residual working capacity, as well as the granting of a disability pension or referral back to the lower court for medical assessment. However, the contested letter was not an appealable decision but an instructive letter by the judge in charge within the scope of ongoing proceedings.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
7B_535/2026: Non-admission of the complaint regarding criminal complaint and inadmissibility of the complaint
Summary of the facts
The complainant filed a criminal complaint against the president of the Solothurn-Lebern district court on allegations including abuse of office, bodily injury, and murder. The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Solothurn did not take up the criminal complaint. The complainant appealed this order to the Superior Court of the Canton of Solothurn, which did not admit the complaint. The complainant brought the matter to the Federal Supreme Court.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
5D_19/2026: Non-admission of the complaint regarding debtor's order for child support
Summary of the facts
The complainant (A.________) was obliged in the context of a matrimonial protection proceeding to pay maintenance for his children (C.________ and D.________) as well as health insurance premiums and health costs. Following a request by the mother (B.________), the judicial authority Olten-Gösgen issued a debtor's order, which was confirmed by the Superior Court of the Canton of Solothurn. The complainant filed a complaint against this judgment with the Federal Supreme Court. Among other things, he requested a recalculation of his financial obligations considering his current economic and health situation.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
7B_526/2026: Non-admission of the complaint regarding commencement of sentence
Summary of the facts
The complainant A.________ was sentenced by the Superior Court of the Canton of Bern on 30 August 2023, among other things, for commercial extortion to a prison sentence of two years and nine months. By order of 2 September 2025, he was summoned by the probation and enforcement services of the Canton of Bern to commence his sentence. He unsuccessfully filed complaints against this with the Security Directorate of the Canton of Bern and then with the Superior Court of the Canton of Bern, which did not admit the complaint by decision of 14 April 2026.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
7B_734/2025: Decision to admit unsealing of a USB stick in connection with an assisted suicide
Summary of the facts
The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Schaffhausen conducted an investigation in connection with an assisted suicide. In this context, a USB stick containing a mandate dossier of the right-to-die organization B.________ and A.________ Ltd was seized. The coercive measures court of the Canton of Schaffhausen refused the unsealing of the stick, which led to the Public Prosecutor's Office filing a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
4A_257/2025: Non-admission of the complaint regarding provisional legal authorization for rent arrears
Summary of the facts
The Federal Supreme Court deals with the complaint of A.________ SA (complainant) against a decision of the Cour des poursuites et faillites of the Cantonal Court of Vaud. The dispute concerns the question of provisional legal authorization under Art. 82 para. 2 SchKG for rents not paid during the COVID-19 pandemic (2021). At first instance, provisional legal authorization was refused due to the possibility of rent reduction based on the clausula rebus sic stantibus. The cantonal instance partially granted provisional legal authorization. The complainant argued before the Federal Supreme Court, among other things, the untenability of applying legal authorization as her grounds for exemption were sufficiently credible.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
2C_313/2026: Non-admission of the complaint regarding restoration of deadline
Summary of the facts
A.________, a taxi driver from Geneva, lost both his professional identity card and authorization to use public space for taxi operations following the decision of the cantonal commercial and undeclared work enforcement police on 26 September 2025. His complaint against this decision was dismissed by the Geneva judicial chamber on 3 February 2026. On 21 May 2026, A.________ requested the Federal Supreme Court to restore the deadline for filing a complaint because he allegedly did not understand the deadlines and legal remedies.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
7B_675/2026: Non-admission of the later complaint regarding dismissal of the criminal proceedings
Summary of the facts
The complainant filed a criminal complaint with the Federal Supreme Court against a decision of the Superior Court of the Canton of Solothurn. The case concerned the dismissal of proceedings by the Solothurn Public Prosecutor's Office.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
7B_651/2026: Admission of release from custody
Summary of the facts
The complainant, convicted of aggravated violation of the Narcotics Act and held in pre-trial detention for years, applied for release from custody. The lower court rejected this with reference to flight risk and proportionality. The complainant has been in pre-trial detention since 12 June 2021, and in early enforcement of sentence since 7 December 2022. By decision of 23 May 2025, he was sentenced to a prison term of seven years and four months and expelled from the country for ten years. On 26 April 2026, the complainant filed a release from custody request, which the lower court rejected on 4 May 2026.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
8C_159/2026: Supplementary benefits to AHV/IV – Offset of half of vested benefits capital
Summary of the facts
The complainant applied for supplementary benefits to AHV/IV, which were originally rejected due to not falling below the asset threshold and later partially granted. The city of Winterthur granted her supplementary benefits from 1 January 2023. The dispute concerns the offset of half of the vested benefits capital of the separated husband as an asset waiver.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
7B_261/2026: Non-admission of the complaint regarding recusal request
Summary of the facts
A.________ was subjected to a criminal investigation in Geneva for commercial fraud and usury allegations after a 91-year-old private plaintiff B.________ filed a complaint. A.________ requested the complete dismissal of the proceedings as well as the general and specific recusal of the first public prosecutor Elsa Studer and the entire Geneva public prosecutor's office. The reason was that B.________ was the father of the Attorney General and was therefore perceived as biased. The lower court rejected the recusal request.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
7B_485/2026: Non-admission of the complaint regarding non-admittance of a criminal complaint
Summary of the facts
The complainant filed a criminal complaint against unknown perpetrators because the Cantonal Social Service refused to cover costs for dental treatment. The Public Prosecutor's Office ordered non-admittance of the complaint, against which the complainant lodged a complaint. The Superior Court of the Canton of Aargau requested her to sign the complaint and pay a court security deposit. The complainant did not comply with these requests, whereupon the Superior Court did not admit the complaint. Before the Federal Supreme Court, she alleged violations of law but did not meet the requirements to justify her complaint.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
1C_458/2025: Non-admission of the complaint regarding restoration order in agricultural zone
Summary of the facts
Property no. 5,664 in the municipality of Versoix (Canton of Geneva) lies predominantly in the agricultural zone and was used for various non-zone-compliant uses, including the construction of several buildings. The competent department demanded restoration of the lawful condition. The affected parties filed complaints, which were dismissed by the lower courts. Before the Federal Supreme Court, they disputed the legality of the restoration order, particularly invoking the alleged statute of limitations of the restoration right and claimed violations of constitutional rights.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
8C_334/2026: Non-admission of the complaint regarding supplementary benefits to AHV/IV
Summary of the facts
The Social Insurance Institution of the Canton of Zurich recalculated the supplementary benefits to AHV/IV as of 1 July 2025 due to a move by the complainant and his wife and requested submission of further documents. The complainant filed an objection against this recalculation (19 July 2025). On 16 November 2025, he filed a complaint for delay in legal remedy pursuant to Art. 56 para. 2 ATSG with the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich. After the Social Insurance Court dismissed the complaint on 26 May 2026, the complainant brought his complaint about delay in legal remedy before the Federal Supreme Court.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
7B_683/2025: Dismissal of the complaint regarding police measures at a fan march
Summary of the facts
On 30 November 2024, the Zurich city police carried out police measures during a fan march of supporters of the Grasshopper Club Zurich, including kettling of participants, identity checks, and photography. A.________, a participant, filed a complaint against these measures, which was dismissed by the lower court on formal grounds.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
7B_442/2026: Non-admission of the complaint regarding advance on costs
Summary of the facts
A.________ filed a complaint against the decision of the president of the complaint chamber of the Appellate Court of the Canton of Ticino dated 27 February 2026, which declared inadmissible a legal remedy filed by A.________ against the dismissal order of the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Ticino.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
7F_45/2025: Non-admission of the revision due to omitted advance on costs
Summary of the facts
A.________ AG filed a revision request against the judgment of the Federal Supreme Court (7B_707/2025 dated 10 September 2025). Due to the omitted payment of the advance on costs within the set deadlines, the request was not admitted.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.
4A_243/2026: Non-admission of the complaint regarding rent reduction
Summary of the facts
The complainant A.________ concluded a lease agreement with B.________ on 25 September 2016 for a 2.5-room apartment in Minusio. By lawsuit dated 12 November 2025, A.________ again requested a rent reduction. This was declared inadmissible by the Pretore of Locarno-Città on 17 November 2025. The Cantonal Court, 2nd Civil Chamber of the Canton of Ticino, dismissed the subsequent legal remedy (dated 30 December 2025) as insufficiently reasoned on 13 April 2026.
You can find the complete summary of the judgment in the portal.